For that example we must begin with the Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously. Their paperwork was all there, so the next step is to have an open to the public (I think they all are public anyway) hearing to explain it to everyone, then decision is later made whether to accept or reject the proposed changes.

The "majority" side of board wanted to not take it seriously. The "minority" side much included Kathy. She and others saw no harm in having the DI come to Kansas to personally answer all the questions the people she was elected to serve had for them and "scientists" who said something else about the theory at the center of the controversy. The question was whether the theory needing state standards changes had any scientific merit/usefulness in the Kansas Public School science classrooms. It was obvious that the theory was controversial but the way US education laws and ethics are concerned the taxpayer (in class represented by students teachers are paid to serve) must have the final say in whether it is science or not.

In this rare case "scientists" are legally and ethically way over the line by trying to circumvent that process. Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.

The boycott by "scientists" left the public hearing unresolved. The KCFS forum became where the public issue went after that to hopefully be resolved through there instead. It took years to get this far. In hindsight Kathy and others who expected a "fair-hearing" for the theory can easily accept that it could not be decided right there. We all needed patience to resolve this one, and by my later giving the theory a fair hearing at the KCFS forum, regardless of it making Jack and others nervous by giving the other side so many ideas and such that way.

It's still as bad now as it was way back then to try deciding this one for Kansas public school system. Get back for a message the Metallica - King Nothing song, from signals you're trying to interfering. I make sure that I don't expect public school taxpayers to treat me any differently. I just put what I have on the proverbial table to be fairly judged, then hope it's liked. I stayed out of trouble that way.

What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant. And there is nothing wrong with that, science likes it messy anyway. So the way the science game is played with this one, how well the theory is working out scientifically is up to the public school taxpayers to decide. Neither student or teacher needs a special board hearing or permission to bring to class something they can find on Planet Source Code these days. Don't need a journal tribunal just students and teachers who like it, and teachers do. One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it. The theory has a little bit of everything, but not so much that it's beyond a good K-12 education level. That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

For that example we must begin with the Kansas Board Of Education public hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design as was also reported by PBS after the Discovery Institute followed official procedure to make a change in a few sentences, that did not change much but it's a "foot in the door" all took very seriously.

BZZZTT!

Wrong!

Please try again. That is not the "theory working out scientifically" is it?

Science is not run from Kansas.

If you don't have any scientific progress then the theory (of ID) is hardly working out scientifically is it? And your claim is therefore wrong.

Quote

Same goes for the Discovery Institute that gets equal time to answer questions from the public.

Going to play that game are we? Well, again, it's irrelevant You made a specific claim, that the theory of ID is working out scientifically. And when asked for evidence for that claim you pull out the Kansas school system?

Try and focus Gary.

Quote

What "scientists" think of the theory, is here genuinely irrelevant.

And yet here you are. And it's funny how you put "scientists" in scare quotes as when I asked you for scientific evidence for your scientific claim you come up with culture war bullshit.

So all that's genuinely irrelevant are your answers to my questions.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2012,13:34

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it. You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I had no problem noticing that you have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" and are mucking up the playing field spitting out sour grapes all over it. You did not even figure out that I put "scientists" in quotes that scare you (like I did board "minority" and "majority") because that is the given name for the team that you think you're helping, by fumbling.

Yeah well I had no problem noticingthat YOU have no coherent explanation at all for the phenomenon of Truck-Nutz andare mucking up the playing field spitting out sour balls all over it. You did not even figure out that I already laughed my ass off at this thread before you made this comment so that should preclude me from laughing it off again but the fact that I just did explains your "intelligent cause"

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

You are now talking about separation of church and state, that was successfully used in Dover. What got the Discovery Institute there, was not having a theory with experiments/demonstrations that explain a mechanism for Intelligent Cause.

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory. By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

This is just straight up gibberish.

Gary we have no idea what you are trying to say. The only thing you've said that is remotely coherent is that you seem to think the Kansas BoE wanting to put creationism in the schools means that ID is 'working out scientifically'. If that's what you think, you're out to lunch, man.

Perhaps Gary has a future as an editor at Social Text.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory. By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory. By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.

Oh, and the Dover, PA ruling by Judge Jones was only against the actions of their school board (that read a statement against another theory in classrooms and had creationism books in school library) not against the "Theory of Intelligent Design". As long as the teachers stick to the science that is in the theory it is legal to teach in any US public school district, including Dover's. Some states even enacted bills to protect teachers from being harassed for (within bounds of science) teaching it. Hence this makes sense: Jimmy Eat World - My Best Theory

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.

If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.

I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.

btw, you know he kicked the bucket, right?

Who exactly?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

This is the best you got? After all those thousands of words in the OP? Notice the careful use of punctuation in the first paragraph:

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

I don't have a plan. I have no idea what you're talking about and nobody else does either. We've had lots of creationists here, but you're the first where we literally can't make out what you're trying to communicate.

I didn't intend to suggest that you had some diabolical plan or anything. You mentioned a possible strategy against the theory, that I needed to explain by going over the most likely outcome of trying it for real. Proposing the strategy made you the (for sake of discussion) opponent against mine.

My being the first creationist you can't make out (what I'm trying to communicate) is probably because I'm not your usual creationist. In fact, at one time I would have been insulted to be called that. But after having been at the same time complimented (not out to fleece the flock) I accepted the new stereotype that fate had given me.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Thanks to google docs, linky I just read his entire manifesto. 40+ pages. It was pretty boring. There were a few choice bits:

Quote

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problemwith a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herdwhere they don’t belong. This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and beingsafer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat differenta lonely moose may still prefer company of cows. Regardless of their reasons for changing specieidentity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belongis not easy. Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helpsexplain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem. Cowswho know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moosebecause they cannot see the difference either.

but in general just kind of pointless and boring. And I don't think English is his first language.

Synopsis:

Take a bunch of Origin of Life, Geochem 101, genetics 101 pop sci books and splice excerpts together. Add 10 pages of explanation and code about how to run a computer model simulation he has of a very simple bug. This section kind of ends with no explanation of the point of any of it. Claims that anything that has anything analogous to a memory of a previous state and exhibits stimulus response behavior, with occasional 'guesses' thrown in, is intelligent. Thus, chemical cycles, cells, multicellular creatures, and humans all exhibit intelligence.

There's no theory of intelligent design here. He just kind of claims that anything that acts interesting or complicated Is intelligent. That's it. The whole thing just kind of stops with no conclusion, no wrap-up, nothing. Gary's got no theory, not even an argument at all as far as I can tell.

It sounds like you are saying I need to make the punch-lines show up better, and use more expression. Is this sentence better?

Cows who know a moose when they see one, will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose, because they cannot see the difference either!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase “natural selection” is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify. This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve). It is this way able to explain what is most important to know about how our brain works, cellular intelligence with flagella and other systems requiring cognitive control, living genomes where each replication cycle is analogous to one thought cycle over billion years of intelligently working on the design problem becoming human (and all the other living-things) presents, to creation by nonrandom behavior of matter that we are a conscious expression of. The entire universe (and all in it) is emergent from behavior of matter obeying nonrandom physical laws (laws of physics) therefore all “features” of the universe and of living things are here best explained by starting with this premise that requires explaining how “intelligent cause” works.

Clear as mud.

Gary, even you can't have failed to notice that on every forum you've posted your 'theory' (and there have been a lot) you encounter the same complaint - nobody understands what on Earth you are talking about. Your 'theory' as presented is gibberish. And the fact you persist in advertising your Planet Source Code award tells me that you are labouring under the delusion that this award in some way validates the 40 pages of rambling you call your 'theory'. It doesn't.

For how many more years and on how many more forums are you going to post this stuff, Gary, before all this sinks in?

The phrase “natural selection” is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify. This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve). It is this way able to explain what is most important to know about how our brain works, cellular intelligence with flagella and other systems requiring cognitive control, living genomes where each replication cycle is analogous to one thought cycle over billion years of intelligently working on the design problem becoming human (and all the other living-things) presents, to creation by nonrandom behavior of matter that we are a conscious expression of. The entire universe (and all in it) is emergent from behavior of matter obeying nonrandom physical laws (laws of physics) therefore all “features” of the universe and of living things are here best explained by starting with this premise that requires explaining how “intelligent cause” works.

Clear as mud.

Gary, even you can't have failed to notice that on every forum you've posted your 'theory' (and there have been a lot) you encounter the same complaint - nobody understands what on Earth you are talking about. Your 'theory' as presented is gibberish. And the fact you persist in advertising your Planet Source Code award tells me that you are labouring under the delusion that this award in some way validates the 40 pages of rambling you call your 'theory'. It doesn't.

For how many more years and on how many more forums are you going to post this stuff, Gary, before all this sinks in?

Reading GaGa's word salad I'm reminded of the old joke:

A horny young woman decides she wants to get laid by a real he-man. She goes to a biker bar and picks up the biggest, baddest Harley dude in the house. They get back to her place and she goes to change into a nightie. When she comes back the biker has his jeans off and he's sporting this miniscule 2" erection. "Who in the world do you expect to satisfy with that tiny thing?" cried the disappointed damsel.

The biker replied "......me."

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal Bio-Complexity will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:

Quote

Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.). Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature. These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews. BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Gary, I guess the ID-friendly journal Bio-Complexity will appreciate your work. Here are its editorial policies:

Quote

Purpose

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Scope

BIO-Complexity publishes studies in all areas of science with clear relevance to its aim, including work focusing on the relative merit of any of the principal alternatives to ID (neo-Darwinism, self-organization, evolutionary developmental biology, etc.). Among the topics of interest are: the origin or characterization of complex biological sequences, structures, forms, functions and processes; pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life; molecular or morphologic phylogenies and phylogenetic methods; new molecular or morphologic data including paleontological data; cladistics and systematics; biomimetic or engineering analyses of biological systems; in vitro and laboratory evolution; evolutionary simulation and computational evolution. Theoretical or mathematical treatments of complexity or information with clear relevance to the journal's aims are also welcome.

Although philosophical works will not be included as Research Articles, the subject matter does call for occasional articles of a more reflective nature. These will typically be invited contributions from authors whose opinions are judged to be of broad interest, which will be published as Critical Reviews. BIO-Complexity will consider for publication only work that adheres to widely accepted modes of scientific investigation and inference.

I talked to Matti. The theory is way too long for an article or paper. Like Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and all the rest, it needs to be published in book form. That's when I started on the most recent text (TheoryOfID.doc) which is now 50+ pages long. After adding in the remaining illustrations that it needs (including a new fwd/reverse Krebs to show molecular mirroring) the shortest possible length is around 70 pages.

BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":

My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.

Charles Darwin had it easy. He only had to explain a cursory observation that indicated living things changed over time. In my case I needed a cognitive model to explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works at emergent levels into (at least) the molecular. The computer model part alone required many thousands of hours of experimentation and coding, on top of all else that had to (for the first time) be figured out then explained in a way that it can next be experimented with by others (i.e. online at Planet Source Code too).

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading:

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them. There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method. For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces. I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work. Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found. There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet. I would not rule it out though.

Hmm, more irrelevant gibberish but no measurements/calculations. What a surprise. Not.

Oh well, don't feel too bad gary, none of the other IDiots can or will do it either.

Chalk up yet another day where "ID" has been shown to be vacuous.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Did Dr. Leisola suggest that your stuff would be too long for a Bio-Complexity article or is this your impression?Isn't it possible to summerize it? Actually, Darwin did the same. Hewrote a short summary when he was informed that Wallace had come to the same conclusions independently. In addition, 70 pages of a word document will reduce to much less when printed in a journal. Thus, you opus would be shorter than Albert Einstein's Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie is long (53 pages) which was still published in a journal (Annalen der Physik. 49, 1916, 769–822).

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."